>> america gets four more years, but is this what voters signed up for? ♪ welcome, everybody, i'm liz in for neil cavuto, and this is the week that the battle lines are drawn. the obama administration drawing up its blueprint for the next four years, and on the agenda, immigration, climate change, gun control, and tax hikes. you notice anything missing? bob cusak and sabrina says democrats are embolden this time
and spending cuts last on the list. bob, first to you. bob, the president is essentially a lame duck, the second term, 16 months. that's a lot to deal with in 16 months. what's first on the agenda, do you think? >> first is gun control, and, obviously, this was before the connecticut shooting, but he did not talk about it in the first term. he didn't push it. he's going to be pushing that, pushing immigration, pushing climate change, but spending is not on his agenda, cutting spending. i think he was interested in 2011, almost got a deal with speaker john boehner on a grand bargain on entitlement reform, crafting a budget now. i don't think you're going to see major cuts in that. it's a significant shift. remember, obama said the deficit kept his awake in the first term. through his actions, you know, he's not pursuing a lot of cuts and changes to entitlements. liz: what is feasible for the president to get through with a window of 16 months?
gun control? what do you think he can push through successfully? >> well, i think he will try to push through gun control, and they are starting right away, and i know biden is in virginia trying to sell the plan, but i think that what's clear is that the president's agenda and the american people's agenda are different. it's expwressing to see that the president is tackling those issues that are at the very bottom of the public's priorities. climate change, gun control, and even infrastructure. these are not changes that the american public wants. they are asking for real economic growth, job creation, tackling the budget in a sensible way because they realize it's vital to the economic, national security. liz: bob, being over that at the hill, you saw the president, i'm sure, the inaugural address, you saw what the agenda he seemed to lay out, entitlements not touched at all, but the issue is with climate change in the second day, the next day after the inaugural address, white house press secretary jay carney
says we're going to submarine that. it's not a singular priority. what do you think of that? >> well, the president know, and he's tried to get climate change through the congress, and he couldn't get it through when the democrats had the house and senate. republicans, of course, now have the house. climate change is not going anywhere on capitol hill, but he can do a lot administratively. i think you'll see a slew of legislations. the address, the liberals loved it. touched upon all their issues, and talked social security and medicare, he was not talking about cutting it, but preserving it. he's going after the republican party. he got the upper hand right now, and speaker join boehner said that obama's trying to annihilate the g.o.p.. liz: picking up on what bob said, a pundit said tax cuts to the g.o.p. what retiree benefits are to the democrats. will retiree benefits get cut? we have until the 2020s until
this fiscal storm really hits. i think 2022 is when the boomers turn 67 when they start getting sick and drawing down on the government's health benefit programs. what do you think about that? >> right. well, look, this is a president that's completely wedded to the social welfare state of the 20th century, looking to advantage the agenda as far as into the 21st century as possible. this is a president who nationalized our health care system, and as bob noted, trying to take that agenda to energy policy and climate change. we've seen it already, manufacturing the whole idea of green energy jobs, and in effect, trying to get rid of traditional energy. i think that we have to be very aware of what's happening here. i think there was a lot of fancy language used in the inaugural address, but the fact is that that doesn't cover up what's really going on here, which is to grow the progressive state. liz: let me back up, listen, we've. covering this issue for awhile
now with fox news and fox business, and here's the issue. will the u.s. start looking like a mature european country? is the u.s. coming towards, you know, sort of an identity crisis? do we want to be a country driven by a vibrant, private economy, or are we starting to look like a mature european country? essentially, the question is can you have small government with an aging population on top of the other programs that was cited that the presidentments. >> no doubt we're on an unsustainable path, and democrats acknowledge it, but as far as whether they're going to cut programs we have and seen mayor cuts to the programs, republican says we are getting like greece. the only thing to change the equation is to make the tough decisions that president obama said himself in the initial inaugural address in 2009 is that he was going to make tough decisions. congress and the president have not made tough decisions. we may have to get downgraded again. the credit rating agency force
action on capitol hill which could spur action. liz: interesting what bob said. when you talk to ratings agencies, you know, yes, they acted like the bar tenders at a party, handing out ids to anyone on wall street, but the u.s. is not agenting like an aaa country. they may not react and poo-poo it, but the reaction has been confidence in the u.s. as a world leader. what do you think of that? >> i think that's concerning. there's certainly a national security component to all of this when we talk about the budget, the debt, and the deficit. we're increasingly becoming a more vulnerable country. countries see us as a country that's divided, and that's concerning. i was concerned when the president ended an era of war when in reality we are in bad fiscal shape, and we're finding that militants abroad, in africa, and the middle east are
intensifying. i don't think we have an era of peace, but a lot to be concerned about to do with our current fiscal crisis at home. liz: bob, any bright spots here do you see? >> not in the shorm, no. china has our debt, concerned about them militarily, but they buy our bonds. there's a danger. that's what officials are nervous about going into the next five, ten, 20 years. liz: you agree with that? >> i do. if i can add one last thought would be that there's a lot to talk about in terms of the bottom line, but there's so much more for liberty, a moral question here to the extent that our state continues to grow that more and more americans are wards of the state. this is a real concern about loss of from -- freedom and one i hope americans participate in. liz: manager of the hill and the independent women's forum, you're the executive director there. real pleasure to have you both. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. liz: next up now, if you're
he's going to apply testosterone to his underarm. axiron, the only underarm treatment for low t, can restore testosterone levels back to normal in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18. axiron can transfer to others through direct contact. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these signs and symptoms to your doctor if they occur. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. do not use if you have prostate or breast cancer. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet, or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness
or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. see your doctor, and for a 30-day free trial, go to axiron.com. gerri: welcome back. the president's secretary of state nominee has a lot to worry about. north korea is threatening the united states. iran is heating up its nuclear program. john kerry is also concerned about the weather getting warmer. >> american foreign policy is also defined by food security, energy security, humanitarian assistance. it is define by leadership on life threatening issues like climate change.
liz: washington watchdog say this could cost taxpayers a bundle. we have weber and lindsey here. phil, start with you, make your case. >> well, if you look at what his predecessor, hillary clinton, did in copenhagen, with a million a year in global warming, never made process, moving that domestically to get the funding for that. there's been a lot of secret treasury documents talking about a carbon tax. the president is coy about a carbon tax, but at some point, there's going to be a push for that in order to fund international transfers, and there's a secretary of state nominee who says it's the number one top priority, and it's been the focus of the coverage here in the beltway that this is a signal where the administration wants to go. liz: i think there's a lot to say about that. what do you think? >> well, it's about time the leader of the free world led on the topic frankly. like it or not, climate scientists do say that climate change is going to cause future
generations serious problems. it's going to have huge economic impact on america. we are seeing hurricanes and so forth. they cost billions. why wouldn't you want america leading the way? liz: go ahead. >> talking about an economy struggling to gain footing. a labor market that's tepid, americans struggling to make ends meet. doesn't make sense for the government to waste resources at this point on this topic. kerry says it's a job creator, but also the free market is a job creator. we have businesses sitting on the sideline with no incementive to invest at this time with regulation and tax burdens. doesn't makeceps. liz: there was an initiative announced by the former president of mexico saying we have to spend $700 billion every year until 2030. that panel says $14 trillion is what the world economy needs to spend to green the global economy. guess what, phil, do the math, 700 billion a year is not $14
trillion. they get the math wrong. a trillion here and there when it's somebody else's money, investors or taxpayers, go ahead. >> liz, you can never get there in terms of reducing emissions to make any difference on global average temperatures. look at any of the models out there. if the treaty was ratified and enforced in the united states, and globally, it would have made a difference of 0.07 degrees over 100 years, taking more 30 treaties more to make any difference on global average temperatures. you're talking about enormous economic costs that run well into the trillions as you pointed out, really for zero environmental benefit. it's just so that bureaucrats have a warm green feeling. resources could be much better invested in other ways or not taken from the private sector in the first place. liz: i think what he's saying is, listen, there's a consensus that climate change may be happening. we don't know to what degree, and, you know, the e.u. wants to
spend $250 billion, but it only movedded the needle lower on the temperature by one degree fahrenheit. the point being is what's the best way to go about this? do we just throw money at the problem when you have big companies like ge and morgan stanley, you know, at the table, ready to benefit from it, or do you do what the utilities are doing, methane, carbon capture. >> a multiprongedded approach. at the end of the day, we can want afford to be on the wrong side of history on this or live life in the short term. this is an absolute concern. at the end of the day, face it, the market is worth $6 trillion. we want a piece of that in america. liz: what do you think? >> we do, but now is not the right time. we have to get the market back to creating jobs, talking less than 150,000 on a monthly basis, 8% unemployment, and the government needs to redistrict focuses to get the economy back online rather than focusing on clean energy right now. liz: phil, is north korea and
iran or climate change the biggest threat? >> clearly the threats from countries like north korea and iran. they are manageable. you can do something about them. if the climate models are right, there's not a lot that can be done about it other than the things we're already doing, and to your point, you know, u.s. carbon emissions at a 20-year low because of the shale gas boom. if we want to do something that moves the needle and have an impact, we shouldn't be focused on international treaties, but developing effective natural gas resources. liz: putting india and china in the climate change treaties? they don't want any part of it. >> absolutely which is why america has to lead the way, the leader of the free world has to be ahead of this. liz: climate change, north korea, or iran? >> long term, climate change is an absolute threat. we have to sort out iran and north creigh that in the near term. doesn't mean you can't have somebody with an eye to the future as well doing both. >> that's my point. the idea this is a long term
agenda. right now, focus priorities more appropriately. liz: phil, when we talk of focusing priorities, a new york city mayor is focused on sodas and not beefing up the subway or infrastructure around the tristate area to stop storms like sandy. you knowings we could do and say all we want at the federal level. when you have that activity at the local level, you got to say to yourself, really, is it worth it; right, phil? >> also giving $50 billion to the sierra club to destroy the coal industry. he's not on the sidelines, it's a pet cause as well. we have a problem in that the governing e leets in large part, not just in government, but outside of government as well focused on boutique issues that really are not relevant to the immediate and serious economic hardships that many americans face right now, and i think we got to get the priorities in order. if you have a growing economy,
and you're doing well, and people are prosperous, you have the resources to tackle every problem that's out there including environmental problems. when the economy is shrinking or growing weakly, you don't have the resources to tackle any of the other problems, and, frankly, environmental quality is the worst in poor countries. this is true historically as well as internationally. you got to get the economics right first before you afford the luxury of environmental protection. liz: climate change work a luxury, what do you think? >> well, no, nine out of the ten hottest years on record have been since 2000 globally. this is is a problem now. liz: what do you think? >> it's not a problem now. right now, i want to see the government focusing on getting the tax burden down, the regulatory burden down to allow america's businesses to be back in the market to create income and have the additional resources to tackle this issue down the line. liz: private sector fix it? >> certainly, if there's a market for it, the private sector will create it.
liz: leaving it there. the happiest place could be in a disney world of hurt. why mickey is getting creepy and why disney is making us all look goofy. the boys use capital one venture miles for their annual football trip. that's double miles you can actually use. tragically, their ddy got sacked by blackouts. but it's our tradition! that's roughing the card holder. but with the capital one venture card you get double miles you can actually use. [ cheering ] any flight, anytime. the scoreboard doesn't lie. what's in your wallet? hut! i have me on my fantasy team.
liz: well, we've been warning you about google snooping, and drones watching you, and now even mickey could be invading your privacy. the head of the privacy panel wants answers from disney world about new wrist bands that track park goers every move including your children. the fear is disney gathers their data and give it to advertisers. disney is crossing a line by trying to track kids and, we're joined by john who says, you know what, it's the government
that's crossing the line. make the case. what do you think of the move by disney? >> well, i think there's two issues here. one east worse than the other, but the first issue is absolutely privacy. we see everything moving towards more and more big brother, and i do think it is a huge risk. we have data bases hacked every day receiving people's private information, and it should be an opt-in situation. look at the potential health risk of our children because there is new physics out there. there is no technology out there and ways to track human residence, and that's another microwave into the industry. look at that before trapping it to our children. >> congress' role is to protect people's rights, not shake down mickey which is what this is. congress is so worried about goofy, the wild ride, and meanwhile, threats like, oh, other i don't know, iran making a bomb, u.s. citizens killed in the
middle east, that's a threat. this is not forced. people wear the magic bands voluntarily, and to that extent, it's none of congress' business. people want to go to disney world, want to pay to be involved with these things to get a lot out of it, and government has no role to tell a private company on how to run its business. liz: on the role of the baseball hearings that's there's more important things going on in the world: way do you think of that? >> there are several more important things going on in the world, and people opt in because they don't know the technology behind it. it's not just a mag innocent, but frequency radio waves. in 20 # 11, we need to take a look at this because over 6 billion people utilize microwaves put up, millions across the earth, affecting humans. we have children doing unimaginable things, we probably should look at that before saying, okay, let's do that. at the same time, john, if
congress is supposed to be protecting our individual rights, they are not doing a good job considering how we have lost the fifth, sixth, and seventh, and going after the first and second as we speak right now. liz: what i want to ask is disney fix the problem and say when we give you a magic wrist band, we are clerking marketing information about you and finding out information about what you shop for and spend money is. it is creepy. shouldn't they tell the shoppers that up front? >> well, individuals and families can opt out of this technology -- liz: that's not the question. hang on. do you think disney should have full disclosure saying we are collecting data on you. go ahead. >> liz, they collect da to on you when you check into the resort. they collect data on you because you voluntarily choose to deal with them. the idea that marketing, i mean, christina thinks wearing a band, electronic band is a health risk, but i think what those who oppose this believe it's a
security risk for kids, but marketing to children is not the same as using force on children. if parents don't want the children marketed to, have them take off the band or have them go to some other place behind disney. they go to disney, however -- liz: disney do full disclosure and tell the families that, yes, we are harvesting information about you and how your family shops, where you are going to spend the money at disney world or disneyland, is that the way to go? >> absolutely. disney should have full disclosure on the technology they put on a child's arm and letting them now what the information is going to be used for. when you go to disney world, you don't expect to be tracked and enup receiving e-mails or mail in your mailbox from marketing. i mean, at least let people know that's what you're doing and why you're doing it. >> you are tracked there because there's hundreds of cameras track your move. you are tracked voluntary lay because you choose to go there
in the first place. liz: we get that. i understand what you're saying. ronald mcdonald is now the lifestyle ambassador because of the food police cracking down saying mcdonalds sells disgusting food, but sells fatty food that, you know, people may not want, and the government stepped in and said wait a second, they are not doing hot in that area. i hear what you say about the government not stepping into disney's world and change things there because of what the government thinks works. i'm saying in the free market, disney can fix the problem, say you know what, hey, full disclosure. we are doing it. that's what i'm saying. go ahead. >> it's not a problem, liz. they interact with the company, collect information about them -- liz: nobody knows the band has data on it and disney collecting it off the band and where people are shopping unless they watch fox business, go ahead. >> well, if they feel it's a threat for them, liz, they probably shouldn't go to disney or wear the band.
they will continue to do so because this is not a threat to anyone. it's a violation of no one's rights, and for government to bother disney's time is outrageous. liz: terrific, pleasure to see you. thank you so much for your time. next up, if you want the president to cut, well, good luck. he's got 58 new reasons not to, and you are going to be stuck with the tab. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] how do you make 70,000 trades a second... ♪ reach one customer at a time? ♪ or help doctors turn billions of bytes of shared information... ♪ into a fifth anniversary of remission? ♪ whatever your business challenge, dell has the technology and services to help you solve it.
♪ liz: welcome back. the national debt, well, it is approaching 16.5 trillion, and we know that's a scary number, but you know what, 58 could be more frightening. that's the percentage of the people just polled who are against spending cuts to medicare. that's going to make it tougher to deal with exploding entitlements. just ask former republican senator majority leader with me now. sir, what do you think of the poll finding? >> well, i'm not surprised, but what it indicates to me is that we have not done a good enough job of explaning to people it's not going to effect people that are now retired depending on medicare. it is a future change which will reform, prereceiver, and protect it. it has to be done. everybody in the city knows we have to reform entitlement programs, both medicare, medicaid, and social security. it can be done in a sensible
way, protect the pros, make sure they are there for the children and grandchildren, but we have to do a better job of explaning what needs to be done, and quite frankly, the president needs to step up and lead on this subject. he knows we have to reform the programs or eat up everything that we have for the federal budget. liz: the president says, you know what, the entitlement makes us safer as a country. what do you think of that? >> well, i was disappointed in the speech. i thought it was going to be more typical inaugural speech reaching out, working together, do the tough things, you know, ask what we can do for our country, but he didn't do that. it was the most left winged speech i've ever heard of a president to give. he has to come to terms with this, and i guess he just is going to try to ignore it. if he does, we're not going to get budget agreements, and the deficit and the debt will continue to go up, and our grandchildren will have to pay the bill. it's totally irresponsible.
liz: senator, correct me if i'm wrong, the american people, when they hear the debt debates, they don't know what to think about it. what should i be scared about? you put it nicely now. you either have to fix it because there's a flood of baby boomers, you know, retiring, drawing down in the 2020s, starting in 2022, the first boomer hits 67. it's either that or middle class tax hikes. you don't hear anything from the white house about the fact that you need to raise middle class taxes to keep the entitlement state going. go ahead. >> just so bogus. as a matter of fact, i was back in jackson, mississippi, went to the reeabilitation center talking to the ladies at the desk there where you check in, and they said, wait a minute, i thought it was a tax that hit the wealthy people. my check, get one every two weeks was cut $200. what's going on here? again, that's why the president needs to step up, and, frankly, that's why members of congress
have to do a better job explaning that we have real problems with these entitlement programs, and you can't just tax yourself, you know, into a balanced budget, and, in fact, we have also to be thinking about growth. every time i talk to paul ryan, i say, paul, just don't talk about what we got to do to balance the budget. talk about growth. what can we do to grow the economy? all the entitlement programs like medicare, many of the fixes are really simple. they will affect people in the future, raise the retirement age year or 18 months or two years, you know, control some of the spending on some of the programs, co-pays, and we need to do a better job of explaning simply and directly to the people. we're not talking about e eliminating or cutting the programs. we're talking modifying the programs going forward so the programs will be there in the future. liz: senator, somehow, the american people did not hear the republican side of the debate or grasp the tax cuts were g.o.p.
republican tax cuts. they are not owned by the democrats, they are the george w. bush tax cuts. back to raising the retirement age, that scares the american people. i understand that the republicans are talking, you know, openly and honestly about what needs to happen, but if you are going to do that, you have to have antiage discrimination laws, people in the 70s, sick on the job, could be firedded. i can't imagine working to age 70. talk about it. >> i'm 71 # and still working. liz: god bless you. >> retiredded from the senate and went to work, a different work, but we're not talking a huge increase. people are living longer. people are in better health for a variety of reasons. over a period of years would affect people going forward in the next several years. it would affect probably our children, but even then, it would have a minimal impact, and on social security, for instance, all you're talking about is an honest cost of
living increase each year based on actual costs of actual inflation. liz: yeah, i hear that. it's a fantasy that the payroll tax can fund social security. be blunt. the congress already spent it. >> that's true. that's true. that's true. liz: i want to read a quote from a former assistant secretary of defense in the reagan administration. he said entitlement reform is a choice between entitlements, paying for social security, medicare, and medicaid, or new weapons systems. in other words, he's saying the national security is at risk. that's what mike mullen said, former admiral joint chiefs of staff. what do you think of the comment there? >> well, i'd want to see the comment, but we can't let it become that kind of choice. we have to have a defense that can do the job of prereceiverring and protecting our freedoms and standing up for american safety, for instance, wherever they may be around the world. at the same time, we need to have entitlement programs. i'm for investing in young people.
i am for protecting older people. my mother thought that she had paid for everything she drew out of medicare, bless her heart, but paid into medicare 20,000 and drew out 100,000. there needs to be reforms. we have to control spending across the board. look at the pentagon. i'm not opposed to that. you need a sensible defense program reflecting what the needs are today in to protect the country and defend our bogses around the world. liz: senator, how much of the problem is the fact that washington, d.c. seems to be living in bubble city? you know, the real estate's going strong, lobbyists, consul at that particular times in the -- consultants in the city going great. that impact decisions in washington, d.c.? go ahead. >> oh, i think so. i think you're in a bubble up here, but, also, remember, members of congress and members of the senate, if they are doing the job, they are going home to the districts, their states, talking to people, listening to people. i think district by district or
state by state, people get that this debt and this deficit is going to consume us. part of the problem though, again, an i go back to the president. he has the biggest megaphone in the town and country. he has to be responsible and step up and speak up and lead. now, based on his inaugural address, maybe he's not going to do that, but that really worried me about the future of our country, and it's not about me or my children anymore. it's about my grandchildren, and we are under serious threat if we don't get the programs under control. liz: thank you so much, former senate majority leader, always good to be with you. >> my pleasure. liz: really appreciate it. >> thank you. liz: force is strong with this one. news that jj abrams directs the next "star wars" movie. while he's making science fiction, meet the man making "star wars" a reality. that's next. don't go away. ♪ ♪
♪ >> i think we're launching. >> oh, my god, everybody strap yourselves in. hold my hand. >> no thanks, i prefer dying giving you the finger. >> if this is what it takes to get out of florida, fine. liz: sometimes that's what it takes. the make believe family going to space has no choice but to return. the next guest is planning space colonies in the near future, to deep space industry, david gump here to explain it all. david, this could be far out what you're doing, the asteroid you're trying to track. what does your company do? there's another company out there. explain to the viewer what you're about, mining asteroids and space colonies, go ahead. >> well, deep space is a resources company prospecting retrieval and processing space resources into products to be
used in space. colonies are a bit away from our current plans. we know focus on providing propellant from asteroids to extend the life of communication satellites. that's the first major market. right now, owners pay $10,000 a pound to get propellant up to the outer to run satellites. when they run out of fuel -- liz: stop there. i want to explain it to the viewers. what you talk about is complicated stuff. has your company pull back out of space and asteroid? have you guys accomplished that? >> no, we're at the starting phase. liz: has anybody done that in >> no one. governments have visited asteroids, but no one brought bun back. liz: what's the point of pulling rocks from outer space. where do you think you can make a profit doing that? >> initial profit comes from propel lant to communication
satellites lasting longer. liz: the rock, the asteroid has fuel and minerals in it to harvest? is that what you're saying? >> exactly. asteroids are diverse groups, some high in water and methane, and others have rich vains of metal used to build things in space. liz: like what kind? >> nickel, iron, copper, trace amounts of silver, gold, platinum. things like that. we can use that -- liz: i hear what you're saying. so how are you -- how do you stand to make a profit? seems costly to try for a net around rocks in space, bring it home, and money from it. i'm not sure what the analysis is here that you guys think there's a lot of value in getting these rocks out of space. go ahead. >> the value is in utilizing the rocks in space for in-space markets because anything up in geoorbit, because of the cost of
launching, is worth $10,000 a pound. a small asteroid, a three yard to five yard wide rock, has a value in the billions for the materials that it contains. our initial effort is to serve inspace markets, try to begin to live off the lain in space rather than launching everything that we need from the ground. which is very expensive. liz: all right, david, you are the ceo of deep space industries. we really appreciate your time sir. sounds like a heck of a moon shot. i'm not fee seeshes there, but it's interesting. come back and tell us when you get an asteroid, and what you found in it and your costs versus the profits from it. harvesting asteroid rocks, wow, never heard it before. interesting. thank you, really appreciate it. >> thank you. you're welcome. liz: next up, gas prices already high, but democrats pumping up a new map to make them even higher.
get ready to get hosed. to grow, we have to boost our social media visibility. more "likes." more tweets. so, beginning today, my son brock and his whole team will be our new senior social media strategists. any questions? since we make radiator valves wouldn't it be better if we just let fedex help us to expand to new markets? hmm gotta admit that's better than a few "likes." i don't have the door code. who's that?
liz: okay. welcome back. gas prices climbing again, but if democratic lawmakers in these states, you know, if they have their way, you'll pay more at the pump, pushing to hike gas tax, and this is happening as 13 republican governors are looking to cut taxes, and we got melissa francis, hooray, you're here. what's going on here? >> look at the reason why so many governors at the same time are talking about changing the gas tax. that's what got my attention. the truth is that americans are driving a lotless. mastercard has a survey how much gasoline is demanded every week, the lowest level ever since the period of time since they kept data. people are driving less.
there's a lot of reasons for this. environmentalists say it is because of the fuel efficient cars, and 2025, standards deck at a time cars have to be twice as efficient as they are now, and there's a lot of people out of work and driving less, and the problem is that states are not getting the revenue from the gas tax that they expected. it's funny to see how they respond. there's two totally different responses. some states are looking at cutting their gas tax. others respond by raising it. i talked to bob mcdonald lately. he talked about getting rid of it, and, no, it's not that much revenue, looking to shift from a gas tax to a higher sales tax to make up the revenue. liz: you know, what tests people's sanity more? at the gas pump or sales register? >> it's interesting. they are both regressive; right? it's a usage tax. with a gas tax, at least they try to say the people who are on
the roads pay for the roads so they use the revenue from the gas tax to pay for things that it makes a little bit more sense, i guess, but people drive to be productive. it's truckers out there getting equipment from place to place or food or deliveries. you tax the things you want to discurnlg. do you want to tax gasoline? i mean, that's productive. that's people out there doing on the work. liz: coming from washington, d.c., probably balance the budget there, ha-ha, but this is the thing that's scary, and i don't want to scare the viewers, but give the information because we're the only ones talking about this. if you switch the channel, you don't get this information. the accountability office wants a mileage tax on truckers.
how do you make it flush with money to fix roads and bridges and all. they talked about a mileage tax, and that could be enacted. >> absolutely. there are states considering that. oregon, washington, vermont are talking about the same thing just for regular drivers, a way to track you. liz: regular drivers, right. >> tax you by miles you drive. all kinds of implications for that. it's the same thing. tax what you want to discourage. do you want to discourage people from driving? i mean, they stay at home and are less productive. that doesn't make sense. it's all about capturing revenue, and when you see the state is lowering the gas tax, they are not as noble as we would hope, but shifting over to a sales tax because they think that generates more revenue. liz: right, and the sales tax regressive too, and you heard this too, what do you think of this with the mileage tax? that gets people out there upset. the way they test it in the
states, you probably heard this too, have to use your own smart phone, rig it up to on star, whatever the positioning thing is, and feeds into the toll boot. the government is not going to pay for that money to collect that tax from you. >> no, to me, first of all, it's big brother, which is scary to everyone, following you, knowing where you go. easy pass, they know anyway, but this is intrucive. also, how long before they create an app to get around it. it's just ripe for abuse. liz: you personally are not, you know, so scared about privacy issues. you used an easy pass. >> i do, but, i mean, the idea of them getting in my phone to tax me more, why not just spend less. just, come on. step away from the trough, you know? like, just, is it reaaly -- i understand we have to invest in roads, but we have all these, you know, shovel ready projects that were ready to go and didn't happen. how needy are the roads. liz: you pronounced "trough"
correctly. >> yes. liz: great to be with you. great information there. >> thank you. liz: next up, more than a few people saying provocative ads like this one should be barred. where's the outrage of millions of tax dollars going to people behind bars? details that, you know what? might make you pretty upset. that's next. ♪
email marketing from constant contact reaches people in a place they're checking every day -- their inbox. and it gives you the tools to create custom emails that drive business. it's just one of the ways constant contact can help you grow your small business. sign up for your free trial today at constantcontact.com/try. overmany discounts to thine customs! [old english accent] safe driver,
multi-car, paid in full -- a most fulsome bounty indeed, lord jamie. thou cometh and we thy saveth! what are you doing? we doth offer so many discounts, we have some to spare. oh, you have any of those homeowners discounts? here we go. thank you. he took my shield, my lady. these are troubling times in the kingdom. moreiscounts than we knoweth what to do with. now that's progressive. >> ranting and raving about the super bowl ad. is not even in a bikini. what is this about? when vendor $24 million in medicaid benefits improperly paid to prison inmates.
lindsey, what do you make of this misguided anchor? >> it is clear why they focus on this. but forget about some risky commercial but between 20 and 40 billion estimated payments, at 8 percent unemployment and the government policies that redirect funds from the most productive to the least productive in the name of fairness. forget about the super bowl commercial i wish people would read director focus. >> do you know, what the super bowl is? >> wide you college football? you play with your hands. and cbs will make $275 million. health care is a massive problem.
with $60 billion per year. >> but she is not in a bikini she's is not a human sponge. >> but try to sell a car? >> are you outraged? >> i am outraged about the many constantly going to prisoners but i could care less about the super bowl advertising. even if she were naked, they filed the sec complaint it would sit tenures why they try to regulate us then day issue a slap on the rest just like janet jackson. it is just a distraction from the real problem. liz: the 124 million people may -- dollars that are
blown on the people but they say you are so ridiculous. this is just a rounding error but it adds up. >> another number, 787 million is the number that went down in 2010 for fraudulent refunds for people in prison almost $1 billion. that should be an outrage. liz: that democrats time and again say we want to raise taxes i say. >> but medicaid or medicare or social security there is so much improper payment and fraud. liz: why isn't that message getting out there? >> they have new technology to go on with massive
medicare. this is a big problem but they look to new technology going forward. reid no health care spending is out of control. liz: should they have gone after that many first before raising taxes? >> it is multi pronged. of course. liz: you are okay with the raising taxes before getting the money? >> you do have to raise taxes. >> you have to get government under control to stop spending. reform entitlements. lower the tax burden to grow the pie for everyone. we need positive revenue growth. raising taxes is the exact opposite thing to do.